RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 659, 2 March 1859, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, Febbuaby 22nd, 1859. Before John Ham., Esq., R.M. and W. C. Beswick, Esq., J.Pi , .'•..■. Alfred Porter was charged by Edwin Cexhead, proprietor of the Royal, Oak Hotel, in Christchurch, with drunkenness and disorderly conduct athis house on the previous evening. Defendant was convicted and fined 20s.' . : Wednesday, 23rd Febbttaby. Before John Hall, R.M. Bernard Aranstadt, a foreigner/ was brought up on a charge of desertion from the brig Susanne, lying in Lytteltori Harbour. John Price, Sergeant of Police, stated that He apprehended the prisoner at Papanui, the previous evening, on the charge of desertion from the Susanne, and brought him to Christchurch. . Prisoner admitted the charge, and was ordered to be sent on board the Susanne in custody of the police. HALEY V. DOGHERTY. This was an action brought to recover compensation for work and labour done, the plaintiff having helped defendant to build a housed and also having done other work for him, for payment of which .services defendant had agreed to allow plaintiff to take up. his abode as lodges at his (defendant's) house for a certain period, In consequence of a quarrel which had taken place between defendant ; and plaintiff's wife,defendant refused to allow plaintiff to live with him any longer. Plaintiff therefore claimed-payment for his time and labor. He (plaintiff) had been informed by his neighbours that the building of the house was worth £30, and he also produced an account of the time occupied in the building. Plaintiff had done 36 days' work, for which he .claimed payment from defendant. Plaintiff also, acknowledged having used some flour belonging to defendant, to the value of 2d. Defendant admitted that plaintiff had helped him to build the house, with the understanding that they should live together in it afterwards, and that some words having passed between plaintiff's wife (who was defendant's daughter) and himself, he, defendant, had told plaintiff it was better that each should have his own place to live in. Plaintiff had then presented his bill, and defendant told him that if he would wait till defendant had got in his wheat he would then pay plaintiff what was fair, <md according to the current rate of wages. He, defendant, did not believe that plaintiff had worked more than nine complete days. The Court, after having considered the case, gave judgment for the plaintiff for £11 55., defendant to pay the costs, 18s. 3d., forthwith. At the suggestion of the Court, tho parties tlienl; came to the following agreement, viz., dofendfl»|; agreed Hint plaintiff should take five acres of 1»$ (defendant's) wheat,'as it stood, in payment fbv t';i|S judgment debt of £11 55., and plaintiff agreed 'bi take (he snime.